Template talk:DRAM

Including the redirects... or not

Hello, Izno! As I've described it in one of my edits, this navbox is simply much more usable in its near-original form – that way, it allows a really good insight into various DRAM types, some of which are covered with separate articles, and some aren't. Also, the related guideline (WP:NAV) doesn't explicitly forbid the use of redirects. Maybe Codename Lisa could provide us with a third opinion on this? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

Codename Lisa here. I myself am very famous for removing redundant redirects from navboxes but I have allowed exceptions to remain in the past. (But because the act of letting it be is not editing at all, it is invisible.) I have removed redirects and pipes where a whole fleet of neighboring terms lead to the top of the same article. Template:Microsoft Windows family is an example. But a counter-example is Template:Compression formats, which lists some links more than once and has some section links too, e.g. its H.222.0 link.

Whatever you guys do, please remember to bypass the redirects. Redirects are really not navbox material. For example, GDDR2 should become [[DDR2 SDRAM#Relation to GDDR memory|GDDR2]].

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Codename Lisa! That's pretty much why I've seen those multiple redirects to the same article(s) as usable in this particular navbox, as they redirect to various parts of the articles that describe different DRAM types, not just to the top of the same article. Izno, would you be Ok with replacing the redirects with links to particular sections? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Add Double data rate and Quad data rate?

I'm thinking that Double data rate and Quad data rate deserve to be added to this navbox. Although they are bus technologies that could be used for anything (strictly speaking), in practice they are closely related with DDR memory. Since most existing links in the navbox are types of DRAM, there's no applicable grouping for these new links, so one would have to be added. I propose calling the group "Transfer technologies". Thoughts? — voidxor 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as an important addition but I'm not going to stop you. You could call it Bus technologies but then it is clear you're encroaching on {{Computer bus}}. Should we add these links to {{Computer bus}} too? ~Kvng (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it'd be better placed in that navbox. Clearly these articles center around memory (since that's where the tech is most notably used), but even Double data rate alludes to having been used (past tense) in front-side busses, SCSI, and AGP. — voidxor 21:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I linked both articles from the {{Computer bus}} navbox instead. Thanks! — voidxor 19:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)